Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Mercury 3
Mercury 3 leads the LLM Stats Score 36.1 to 21.3. Mercury 3 is 5.2x cheaper per token.
Google · Inception · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Mercury 3 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 36.1 to 21.3, ranking #98 overall.
In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Mercury 3 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Mercury 3 is roughly 5.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Gemini 2.5 Flash
- you want predictable pricing at $0.30/M input and $2.50/M output
Choose Mercury 3
- overall performance matters — it scores 36.1 and ranks #98 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 5.2x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
14 reported for Gemini 2.5 Flash · 12 for Mercury 3
Gemini 2.5 Flash outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Mercury 3 is better at 1 benchmark (GPQA).
Mercury 3 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash ($0.30/1M tokens) is 3.0x more expensive than Mercury 3 ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash ($2.50/1M tokens) is 7.1x more expensive than Mercury 3 ($0.35/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Gemini 2.5 Flash is more expensive than Mercury 3.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Both models have the same input context window of 1,000,000 tokens. Gemini 2.5 Flash can generate longer responses up to 1,000,000 tokens, while Mercury 3 is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Gemini 2.5 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Mercury 3 does not.
Gemini 2.5 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Mercury 3
License
Usage and distribution terms
Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.
Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.
Proprietary
Closed source
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Gemini 2.5 Flash was released on 2025-05-20, while Mercury 3 was released on 2026-10-19.
Mercury 3 is 17 months newer than Gemini 2.5 Flash.
May 20, 2025
1.4 years ago
Oct 19, 2026
0 days ago
1.4yr newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Gemini 2.5 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-31, while Mercury 3's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Gemini 2.5 Flash's training data extends to 2025-01-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without Mercury 3's cutoff date.
Jan 2025
—
Provider Availability
Gemini 2.5 Flash is available from DeepInfra, Google. Mercury 3 is available from Inception.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Mercury 3
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Gemini 2.5 Flash and Mercury 3 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Mercury 3.